Recently, Reglan lawsuit plaintiff Bobby Tate Bowman had his Reglan lawsuit dismissed when the judge in the case decided that defendant Teva’s argument — that all of Bowman’s claims in his lawsuit were preempted under the Mensing v. PLIVA ruling made by the Supreme Court in 2011 — was accurate.
Bowman’s case began when he started taking a generic version of Reglan that caused him to suffer from tardive dyskinesia, a movement disorder that is similar to Parkinson’s Disease. Tardive dyskinesia is a well-known adverse side effect of taking the brand name version of Reglan. Bowman decided to file a lawsuit against Teva on May 3, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. He argued that “Teva’s labels for metoclopramide (the generic version of acid reflux drug Reglan) were inadequate under state law to warn patients or the medical community of the risk of developing severe and permanent movement disorders, such as tardive dyskinesia.”
However, on February 24, 2011, Bowman’s case was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Mensing case. That ruling came down on June 23, 2011 and went in favor of generic drug maker in that it can’t be held liable for patients not being properly warned about drug side effects since the federal laws states that generic manufacturers are only required to post the same warnings on their drug labels as their brand name counterparts.
For Bowman, this meant that the stay in his case was lifted on August 23, 2011. Bowman’s legal argument was that “the complaint contained claims in addition to the preempted failure-to-warn claims, but the court disagreed. On March 2, 2012, the court dismissed all of Bowman’s claims against Teva with prejudice.” Even though his case was dismissed, Bowman can still pursue his lawsuit against the brand name manufacturers if he chooses to.